“Rules such as 29 CFR § 1910.1000 provide specific examples of hazards such as carbon monoxide (limit of 50 parts per million). An employer has a duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct by employees.2 Compliance with 29 CFR § 1910.1000.Z is mandatory, not optional. Relative to smoking, an employer must comply with the “duty to prevent and suppress” a hazard such as carbon monoxide, since “the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on health are beyond controversy.”3

“The so-called nonsmokers' rights movement is in a sense misdirected on this issue, although accurate, albeit by indirection. As a matter of law, it is not necessary to reach the issue of the hazard to nonsmokers, as the employer's duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct arises when smokers endanger themselves, a point in time before additional personnel (such as nonsmokers) are also endangered.

Employers must obey both the general words and the specific numerics. An employer who said, 'we'll obey the number, not the general rule' was found guilty of noncompliance under both federal and state law when a Detroit-area worker was killed on the job as a result. The case citations are

The author is particularly familiar with these cases. The incident happened in a building in which he'd worked, and by which his job daily took him on the premises!
Advisory: Do NOT believe OSHA or other “safety” personnel who pretend that OSHA does not cover TTS. Such personnel may knowingly attempt to deceive you that TLVs / PELs do not cover most TTS ingredients.
The “carbon monoxide in the range of 500 to 1,500 parts per million” above cited, clearly grossly exceeds the PEL / TLV of 50 in the "breathing zone." However, OSHA officials carefully, intentionally, maliciously never record this fact.
OSHA officials thus carefully, intentionally, maliciously (knowing harm and death to be foreseeable natural and probable consequences), attempt to scam you; refuse to enforce the pertinent PEL / TLV; and omit to cite the "general duty" clause.
By refusing to cite "breathing zone" data, OSHA officials aid and abet tobacco deaths. They obstruct dealing with the initial hazard, to smokers themnselves.
One might treat such officials as Jews should have treated their ilk at Auschwitz who said 'inside are showers,' but omitted other key facts!

Most people are familiar with “speed limits,” as well as the general driving rule, 'drive safely.' Cigarettes emit deleterious emissions (“Toxic Tobacco Smoke” [TTS]) that exceed the “speed limits” for toxic chemicals in the air. These toxic emissions are due to cigarettes' inherently deleterious nature and ingredients.

&nbsp In this context, it is easier to understand why TTS cigarette emissions are so fatal. The "speed limit" for carbon monoxide is about 100, whereas it's doing 42,000. This emissions rule (29 CFR § 1910.1000) is a federal regulation.

Check your state laws as well. For example, Michigan law MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, bans cigarettes with hazardous ingredients, as analyzed by this writer. By banning cigarette manufacture and sales, so that cigarettes cannot legally be in Michigan, the Michigan law has the effect of making Michigan smoke-free.

See also Daniel M. Berman, Death on the Job: The Politics of Occupational Health in the United States (San Francisco: Medical Committee for Human Rights, 1974), for background on employees being killed on the job.

A murderous boss may pretend ventilation is a substitute for smoke-free behavior. Not so. There is no controversy in the science nor among the recognized experts in ventilation technology. The only "controversy" is a fraud, made up by opponents of smokefree policies. The recognized organization on ventilation, referenced in many regional and national building codes, is the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating & Air Conditioninging Engineers. It specifically addressed this subject several years ago and concluded there is no ventilation, air cleaning or air filtration technology on the market that can adequately remove the toxins of secondhand smoke to where it would no longer pose a health risk.

Other Writings by Same Author

“Are You Missing $omething?,”
26 Smoke Signals 4 (Oct 1980)
(discusses cigarette costs to society, following my practice of
consolidating in one narrative, data from a multiplicity of sources,
refuting the then notion that cigarettes are a cost plus to society)